Read "GENESIS OF GENESIS" (Amazon 2012) -- the Bible has nothing to do with a real assertion of the age of the earth, or universe. It is a calendar given a starting date 5700 years, with each event an astrological node going down to the building of the First temple.

The math works, and is linked to every other calendar in the ancient world -- in most cases, a common yDNA, and relevant legends are also associated with each calendar culture. It even explains why our calendar begins four years after Herod dies, when he should have died two years after Jesus was born -- the event which supposedly marked the start of the calendar.

Marco Rubio is not a scientist, he might well be a Creationist -- certainly he is not knowledgeable about the Ages of the Biblical Patriarchs... the vast majority of people aren't... even Hebrews don't understand why they have a 19 year calendar cycle and a special holiday every 28 years.

My own take on an otherwise very BIG issue, BIG because it goes to the fundamental beliefs held in different belief systems and, God forbids (figure of speech in the English language), the individuals inside that belief system who all claim they understood their belief system even as the next person on the same pew spouts different calls and different judgments, is that it is a mole hill from which a mountain has been made.

Why do people have to win an argument on the question whose and which is a better faith? As long as a faith comes from the better angels in our nature and translates into real deeds for real people that embodies kindness and charity for all, why must one religion claim hegemony over another? Is this another game of rape? A mental one in which the victim this time is assured by the rules of the game of passing the pregnancy test? Thanks but no thanks.

When does life begin? If you believe it takes place at conception. That is your belief. Live that belief and benefit from it. It is a precious belief. But you have no right to impose that belief on someone else who believes differently. Least of all tell them you are right and they are wrong. Least of all, chase after them to argue with you even when they decline because your argument is tired and pointless and a waste of time. You need to pick a fight because you need to declare yourself a winner? Is that it? But there is no winner in this. If you truly understand your faith, stop being a rapist. All we ask is for you to respect, in actions (not just in knowing how to spell “respect”) what we believe, for we do sincerely respect what you believe and therefore expect you to return the respect. Respect means embracing the notion that neither you nor we are right and neither you nor we are wrong. We just believe differently.

You said your faith enables you to ride through challenges to your belief. That is very good. Others have the same faith that enables them to ride through challenges to their beliefs.

You have not invented all the good things on earth, you know, not even faith, regardless whom or what you quote. Thousands if not millions of men and women have said the same thing, in the West, in the East, in the North, in the South, in skin colors white, brown, blue, yellow, red and whatever combinations of colors they now come in, in year 700 BC, 700 A.D., 1918 A.D, 1945 A.D. and they will continue to say the same. Their lives were equal in contribution and value to the human race. The difference is they show it by actions, not by words, words, and nothing but damn words, and most times not even well articulated words. It is 2012. Look around, go outside your 10 inch diameter well, and discover what is outside the well. All roads lead to Rome, if it is the right road, of course. People have the freedom to go on NOT the one you are on, without having to deal with your proselytising in a non-religious magazine where people of all faiths congregate. Most are not interested in a heaven except the one that holds information on the origin of the universe. You are so nouveau-riche with your wares, and so often wrong on the facts you think would show off your wares, that it is embarrassing to watch.

In my view, no politicians should mix their personal religious faith and public policy. Nor should the media – I don’t care if it is TE – add fuel to this quagmire. . To sell paper, great. To hike the number of subscriber comments. Great. But at some point, articles of this nature crosses the line of gratuitous nonsense. TE is thus far not held on the same level with Springer, however better-dressed everyone is.

Many rape victims go untreated for the physical and psychological sequalae of being violated in body, mind and spiritual psyche, then forced to give birth, then doomed for a life a lifetime long of abject single-motherhood, capped with a double-whammy of bearing the stigma of being a “welfare queen”, then transfer that stigma to her progeny whose father is unknown, unrevealable, or unknowable - definitive evidence it was NOT a rape, a politician said. Too bad, then you say, that was God’s will and the victim’s Manifest Destiny. Life begins at conception. And btw, our society doesn’t like you, has nothing for you, and if you stick out your hand to receive a food stamp to buy milk for you baby, and take MediAid when the baby gets sick, you are a lazy 47%-ter - in short, a bum.

That is the issue, not who is right about when life begins and how the universe was created. Sick. Very sick.

"The difference is they show it by actions, not by words, words, and nothing but damn words, and most times not even well articulated words"

Honestly Ashbird. I think your emboldened conclusion is a separate post because it doesn't even relate to R.M.'s profound discomfort.

Is your rape comment referring to Todd Akin, Missouri's defeated senatorial candidate? I assume the "lazy 47%-ter" is a reference to Mitt Romney, the defeated presidential candidate. I have no idea why you would concern yourself with your very BIG issue of Florida politics.

I voted for Crist in the primary but will vote again for the young Rubio in the next general. I hope you don't mind.

No, no, no, k.a., you misunderstood. Not relating to the author of this TE article at all. Not at all.

Nor anything against Rubio. If you read my comment more carefully, I in fact was saying nobody is right, nobody is wrong. OK?

And of course I don't and won't mind whomever you vote for. We all vote for the person we want to vote for. This is a free country. I've heard even between spouses, one votes for a Republican, one vote for a Dem and they sleep together in the same bed.

Oh! By mental rape, I merely meant we all have our religious beliefs regarding how the universe was created and when life begins. For a member of any religion to say to a member of another religion they alone are right because their religion alone is right, and all other religions are wrong, becasue thier religion is the only one that can be right, that is a statement not merely offensive, but when enforced, is rape - in my book, the worst kind of rape. I hope you don't mind my having that opinion. My comment was addressed to a specific commenter in a different thread. I chose not to use the name.

Actually, Ashbird, if you read my reply more carefully, you'll understand why I have two problems with your closing paragraph. Were you, or were you not, referring to (1) Todd Akin's legitimate rape and (2) Mitt Romney's 47%-ters? Neither were mentioned in this post.

Oh! And if you want to address a specific commenter in a different thread, do us clueless mortals a favor and return to that thread to do so.

Just so I don't get misunderstood again, this commenter believes life begins at conception. I do not. Hence my paragraph in bold.

This commenter said his Pope told him life begins at conception. And therefore he must be right and anyone who disagree must be wrong. I find that attitude deeply disturbing as it is disrespectful of other faiths and religions, which includes mine.

This commenter also over and over again states just because you don't believe in the same "God" he believes in, you are an "atheist". I happen to know of members in his religion, including an 80+-year-old theologian who teaches the stuff in a university that is his religion's university. They all think he is "problematic", not a good spokesperson for his own religion.

This commenter further represents he accepts that science and religion have no conflict, yet in the same breath he made that statement, he asked you to watch a clergy condemning scientists as "tired atheist". The two-faced turnabout is again disturbing because it is disingenuous and hypocritical.

OK, now you can cuss me all you want, k.a. But I am entitled to my opinion.

But don't cuss me, though, for having said the author of this TE article is bad, or Rubio is bad. I DIDN'T.

I did say mixing politics and religion is a bad idea. I also said the media should not stoke that fire. Should not because no one gains from that exercise, not the voters, not the economy, certainly not friends unless they are husband and wife who end up making up in bed.

In my book, there are only three kinds of people I don't talk to. I don't because it is a waste of my time (why of course all are welcome to not talk to me :)). One, hypocrits. Two, bullies. Three, people who think their God is the only God and if you don't have one with a name at all (so-called "atheists") you go to hell (I always say gladly shall I move to hell as nearly all of my dearest of friends are there according to that house rule)

As to folks who have different opinions on things, the more the merrier. That's how we all learn. Just don't bring God or you are a rapist of the mind. That is my opinion.

On your suggestion, you are quite right. It is mortally confusing. I don't think I need to at this point. I have said all I wanted to say. I don't like mental rapists. Regardless of the authority they claim. When they claim the authority, that makes them even worse, for now they are not only rapists, they are additonally bullies ("I have a BIG GUY behind me, the BIGGEST you have ever known. Therefore you are wrong and I am right" or, "Believe, or you go to hell". When people can't talk substance, they spew nonsense.

k.a.,
Just so you know I didn't make it up, this is what the individual said in his post on Nov 22, 02:33 in reply to another commenter -

“anti-choice”

The Catholic Church fully recognizes that we have free will and are masters of our own acts – that we have the right of choice.

However also, the Catholic Church teaches that life begins at the moment of conception – you do not have the choice to choose when life begins.

You have the choice to do what is right or wrong.

etc.,etc.,etc.... there is more, you can check it out. (I don't know how to attach a s

The individual opines he feels education reform is urgent in America. This is a propostion with which no thinking person would disagree.

But in the reform, this is what he wants to teach. That life begins at conception. No challenge is allowed, not even science, and he represents himself as a science supporter.

"Who said life begins at conception?" you ask.

"My God", he answers.

"But my God says differently", you reply.

"But your God is wrong. Only my God is right. In any case, your God is no God. Only my God is God", he answer.

"Pardon me, who said only your God is God?" you ask.

"My God said", He answers.

And at this juncture he'll pull out a quote from his saint (which btw he selectly quotes as I them all by the time I finished undergrad). More authority from his God that your God is not anybody, only his God is.

The truth is even the Pope will not now say that that nobody's God is God, only his is. But this individual wants to win an argument.

If you tell him Roe v. Wade was decided by the US Supreme Court for all of America, he'll say the Court was wrong. Who said? His God.

k.a., I don't know what your religious affliation is. Whatever it is, I respect it. It may be the same as this individual's faith, in which case I want to doubly clarify it is not the faith I disagree with. It is the

Last sentence reads: It is his refusal to honor the faiths that other people hold, including one, for example, that says first trimester instead of at conception, that is deeply offensive.

The real or feigned inability to countenance an honest discussion without intellectual deceit renders a dialogue impossible.

I can do a battle of quotes from Aquinas, from Aurelius. I read all those stuff eons of years ago. I am almost I will win. But what for?

Pulbic policy is about real people who take the consequences of implementation, not coocoo heads delving into the wisdom of an ex-fornicator turned celibate. That is a branch of wisdom infintely worth pursing. But to use it to say other people's faiths and perspectives on spiritual matters have no place in this world other than yours is bullyism in its most extreme, however cloaked.

When divine explanations and scientific truths are given equal footing, no armistice can be accepted. Rather, science must continue to forcefully rebut religion's unsubstantiated claims in public battles like this. And smart politicians must be made to feel profound discomfort when dealing in the absurdities that appeal to some faithful voters.

Ash, I agree with you in that mixing politics and religion is a bad idea. I don't know what your religious affiliation is, either. We shall happily remain clueless mortals in that regard.

I also agree with you that the media should not stoke that fire, as R.M. tried in the above quote. He is an intolerant bully. I hope Marco Rubio ignored the PROFOUND DISCOMFORT which R.M. meant to inflict.

The reason I have kept my own faith or religious affiliation out of the realm of public policy discussion is I believe one should not mix politics and religion. That mixing makes bad politics and bad religion. Of the former, our last election was replete with examples from GOP; of the latter human history is replete with examples of bloody wars fought in the name of whose God is right. I cannot believe for the life of me in the year 2012, there would remain a strand of mentality so flagrantly brazen as to declare its faith is the only right faith there is, and further declares because his only right faith says life is viable at conception, all other views held differently on the subject are wrong. There is Free Choice, the declaration says, but the available options are determined by his faith, not yours or anyone else’s. Year 2012 and post 9/11. That mentality remains. And GoP will improve in two years.

I loathe a mentality that establishes truth by declaration. This type of “truth”, whether declared for child rearing or nation building, has been the root of untold human suffering from time immemorial. What makes it additionally anything but the truth is the suffering it consequences is utterly avoidable. We as a human race have evolved to a stage of collective ripeness where more options are entertainable and in many available.. On the level of nation building, our Founding Fathers laid out a plan that includes the separation of Church and State. A certain religion and its brotherhood in America persists in ignoring this Separation Principle, claiming that their way, which mixes the two, is “better” than what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Accepting there are better ways, they further declare there is only ONE better way, and that way is their way, not yours. That mentality is what I find morally decrepit. It is so decrepit it is reprehensible.

There is not much mystery in what my faith is. Names are irrelevant. Do you ever worry about the color of checks, received or sent, as long as they are good? I live a very moral life, by the strictest of moral standard, stricter than the strictest people I know. I believe the pursuit of knowledge is a moral responsibility to our fellow men so that you don’t talk orange when they concern is apple. . I believe in charity for all, irrespective of race and religion, so that you don’t preach love from one side of your mouth and spew hate on the other. Or apathy and indifference. I believe in not knowingly and willfully inflicting hurt on another person. I believe in apologizing when you find out you have been. I believe in the crucial value of self-awareness as a moral discipline owed to our fellow men –spouse, children, friends, fellow drivers, next door neighbors. The discipline is not only to avoid looking bad on your part, it is to avoid making unpleasant experiences for others. If you must fart, do with your pants on. And try to face your backside to the window. I believe in actions speak the loudest, not words, even as the words may be once spoken by a man with an extra-long and curly beard. I believe no one is either superior or inferior to me in his basic human value, whether he/she is a saint, a sinner, a guy with a funny hat or a guy with a bald head, a woman who is forced to sell her body to feed her baby or a princess who marries a prince. I believe people should not over-react or be intimated by either wealth or poverty. I am not. I believe in the final analysis we are all in the same boat whether it sinks or sails.

I am aware, instead of unaware, that a faith, including my own as stated above, can easily turn into a delusion if I fail to match what I think and do with what reality is in my face. And that is why I don’t like to talk about what my faith is, preferring to use the time to what the reality in my face is. I strongly believe that any faith that says only it can be right, and everyone else is wrong, even bolstered by hundred million quotations cited from books that begin with K or B or S or H, is the faith of a 9/11 pilot. Look at their list of quotes. They will shatter your mind. A faith of this kind is not faith. It is a delusion. A delusion is dangerous. And delusion is what now we all face internally in America. Delusion from economist, delusion from talk show hosts, delusion from men behind the pulpit. A vicious circle close to formation. The way to not let faith turn into a delusion is be self-aware and humble for other people’s insights and constructive criticism. Listen to substance. Speak substance. Acquire substance. Not buffoony. You cannot make sense when you don’t have sense. Finally, when all gets confusing, look at whether you have made more people miserable than happy. If the answer is affirmative, chances are there is something wrong in what you believe. That is all you need to know about my faith.

American politics has degenerated into a farce, a carnival show. I blame that on introducing faiths and religions into the process. Something as fundamental as what to teach in public school, for instance. As long as some want to teach earth was made in 7 days and human life is viable at conception, and others want to teach "Not everything is certain, the jury is out, let's continue the inquiry and keep an open mind", and the former put up an obstacle course to the endeavor of the latter, the former cannot be said to be in Good Faith of wanting anyone to improve. A sound education is a process of relentless inquiry. The apriori establishement of all conclusions to all inquiries, including when life begins, is antithetical to a sound education. This is why I despair when I read the idea(s) of this commenter. The despair shows as rant.

Thank you for reading, k.a., if you have. You would have if you reach this far. :)
PS: On Rubio, if you read carefully what I said many posts ago, I said he seemed to be sincere about what he believes instead of saying those things for political posturing. That makes a difference, whatever you believe. I don’t’ have to agree, I only have to respect.

This is a special note to you, k.a. I have a bad habit of proofreading after I sent my stuff in to my publisher. They usually do the proofread and edit for me and we go from there. Knowing you to be a perfect writer, never showing a mistake in spelling or punctuation in anything you post (not one single!), I just want to say I noticed a ton of missing words and missing "s"'s in the last two segments, in addition to other transgressions to the English language. So I ask for your personal indulgence.

k.a., I confessed I have not read every single one of your posts since I first discovered TE a little over 2 years ago. Maybe you did drop words here and there. But your English, along with the English of a handful of others, resemble most the English my English teachers taught me. Thus maybe I am a little partial. Remember our agreement on the use of "comma"?

I want to say explicitly something I didn't do in my last post that your example of an intolerant bully in the quote you produced fits my own definition of a bully. No system of morality should tolerate a standard that says when you do it, you are wrong, when I do it, I am right.

So, you are right, the author of that quote was an intolerant bully, even as I agree with a few other things he said.

I have learned in my relatively eventful and educational life, both professionally and as an ordinary person, that people who can’t understand the meaning of double-standard, a standard that says when I do it I am right when you do it you are wrong practice that standard every day of their lives. They also will turn out to be the most officious and the most intermeddling of all humans. Why? Because they are not aware of their own agenda and think it is something else.

Absurdities speak for themselves if they are real absurdities. And they do eventually die of their own dead weight. The law of evolution demands it. No human intervention is necessary. Even Galileo's opponents dropped out, however the then Pope tortured the old man for disagreeing with what the Church dogma said. The same thing will happen with knowing when a viable human life begins, whether it is at the moment of conception. No one has been known to succeed in winning over evolution in the onward press to understand life and Nature. To believe you can isn’t faith. It is delusion.

I am glad we were able to chat. We must do it again when we can share our ideas without bringing God in - yours or mine. You are a feisty person. Seldom mince words but I haven’t found you to be a hypocrite. I respect any person who is not a hypocrite. I hope you don’t’ mind my saying that.

Great. Another GOP wannabe pandering to the far right by supporting the concept that science need not be believed or accepted unless it conforms with your personal beliefs, and that all belief-based views of science are equally valid.
I don't know much about Rubio yet, but anyone who thinks science is subjective has lost my vote.

In another dimension, Mr Rubio is head of the state when a huge liquidity crisis hits.

The overwhelming majority of economists urge him to bailout the banks to stop the chain reaction.
On another hand, a drunk and hapless supporter proposed to "let those greedy bastards go bust" at his latest rally.

Mr Rubio is not an economist, but is the humblest man, so he acknowledges publicly he is indeed very humble one more time.
He then decides to treat both propositions equally and not to take heed of the economists obvious consensus.

The problem with R.M.'s view is that there is a "public battle" here. Rubio clearly indicated that the public battle he was looking to engage in was the economy. But more important is the fact a "public battle" has been selectively chosen here and not when Obama said "My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live — that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true"

Caveat: I think this is a tempest in a teapot, and my only direct statement in the thread has been about the part of the quote referencing what people are allowed to talk about or teach at home.

That said, you can find all sorts of religious believers who accept cosmology and evolution (e.g. Catholic theologians, and they have a ton of company) who would say much the same: that it is a poetic story that captures the fundamental truth and wonder of creation. If you try to hew to Rubio's seven ages and force the science you will get in trouble, but if you go with the poetry of it you are good.

It's not like a bunch of nomadic shepherds living thousands of years ago needed a graduate seminar in cosmology and biology to keep alive in the oral tradition. The history of Yahweh's relationship with uranium or microbes is not the point of the Old Testament.

What is the point of the Old Testament?
That genocide is a good thing? That we and all animals are descended from the occupants of Noah's Ark? That gathering sticks on a Sunday should be a capital offence?

As YzDc3rYZaj pointed out, there are areas in which Democrats have faith in their beliefs in the face of daily and overwhelming evidence against them-- for example, in the idea that the behavior of people rarely changes in response to government solutions in such a way as to ruin the logic and effect of those solutions. Or that government spending rarely or never causes inflation. Or that black Americans aren't of slightly lower intelligence on average or, at present, much more violent than any other group. If this kind of thing is appropriate to ask political leaders, shall we ask Obama about them? And if he waffles the way Rubio did, will we condemn him similarly? I doubt it.

The Left is a newer and less hidebound form of organized morality than religion, but it's still organized morality, with its tithing, conflation of egalitarianism with morality, and, here, taboos.

Studies of response to government programs show that behavioral changes are generally small and it takes very large negative incentives to elicit much response. Even under AFDC, studies that looked at the actual response of the poor found that the larger effect was to push people into grey market activities that did not require filing taxes, with TANF and the EITC this effect has largely disappeared. Most studies that have tried to look at varying welfare levels have found small, if any effects (such as looking at population movements between states with varying welfare levels). The idea that behavioral responses swamp program intents is bunk written about by Heritage and Cato, it doesn't appear in academic journals.

It is well understood by liberals that deficit government financing can cause inflation when we are at or near full employment and can cause crowding out in these conditions as well. Who disagrees with this?

No one disagrees that black Americans are more violent or scores lower on test scores, the disagreement regards whether this is a sociological or biological difference. Mention this to Obama and he'll respond with something about the importance of fatherhood or some other platitudes that he's said before on the topic.

Who are the liberals you have encountered? During the election I canvassed with a number of them, and while we didn't discuss the topic regarding African American crime rates, we did discuss macroeconomic concepts and they all seemed at least generally familiar with the concepts. To be blunt, it appears to me to be you who is not familiar with the literature on response to government programs,* or what liberals understand with regards to government financing.

*saying that generally these programs do not provoke large responses does not mean that there are not identifiable problems. The biggest problem currently is the interaction of SSDI and Medicaid. Since being on permanent disability qualifies a person for Medicaid and permanent disability has very strict wealth and income tests this provides major work disincentives for people whose incomes do not exceed their medical expenses. These individuals find themselves in a position where they cannot work as much as they would like to because doing so would cause them to lose their Medicaid. However, simply ending these programs wouldn't help much, since these people would either go bankrupt or die without Medicaid. The disincentive isn't because we are assisting these people but because their medical needs are greater than their potential income so their income remains well below potential so they can acquire medical care because of SSDI rules.

"It is well understood by liberals that deficit government financing can cause inflation when we are at or near full employment and can cause crowding out in these conditions as well. Who disagrees with this?"

Who mentioned deficit government financing and the other conditions you include?

"No one disagrees that black Americans are more violent or scores lower on test scores, the disagreement regards whether this is a sociological or biological difference. Mention this to Obama and he'll respond with something about the importance of fatherhood or some other platitudes that he's said before on the topic."

Large numbers of people disagree about those things, or get upset when they're cited. I've encountered them far more frequently than I care to think about, at least if I'm trying to feel optimistic. The point is that even if these are sociological differences-- and I believe they are as regards violence, at least-- that's a matter of culture, which the Left hasn't shown any evidence that they're willing to touch. Obama is a better man in that regard than many, but the fact that he's black frees him up to say things like that about other black people.

What it feels to me is that many black people try to form their own unique identity by being whatever white people are not. So we get that "acting white" and "stop snitchin'" thing. We don't hear that out loud as much as we used to, but I live around black people and it looks to me like the ideas themselves are alive and well.

Obviously I can't respond to the studies you mention without actually seeing them, but I will say that the fact that they exist doesn't mean much by itself. Science, after all, only looks for what society is willing to accept, and I believe that's true most of all with social sciences. When someone actually sees something outside the acceptable range of conclusions, like the authors of The Bell Curve, there's hell to pay among liberals.

My point stands: there are things that the Left wishes to believe strongly enough that they're a matter of faith for them. They use their intelligence to find reasons to support them, which the Right doesn't, but it doesn't mean that the reasons and not their emotions are the underlying motivator for them to support those ideas.

"I've encountered them far more frequently than I care to think about, at least if I'm trying to feel optimistic."

This is probably because people can be pretty perceptive, and you come across as an intolerant racist rather than just a guy trying to discuss some interesting academic findings. Tzimisces is a gentleman to take you seriously, because it's hard to take you seriously when you argue that the evidence may favor the oposing view, but that's only because your views are too edgy and uncensored for the sheeple to accept right now. You and everyone else with access to an internet comment box, buddy.

I've encountered people who freak out when black violence and low test scores are mentioned, and you both compliment Tzimisces, who says they don't exist, and at the same time say that people like that are perceptive? Visit fbi.gov for the violence statistics-- but I doubt you will. Anyway, you compliment and contradict Tzimisces in the same breath. It's pretty hard to take _you_ seriously, buddy. You give yourself airs (seriously, "Systemic Thinking"? Pompous much?) about how serious and brilliant and thoughtful you are, but there's no one easier to fool than someone who's sure he can't be fooled.

As for the rest of your post, I can only say this:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer) Do I have truth? I don't know, but I do know you don't know either while acting like you're certain you do.

Maybe I was too ambiguous in my reply to you, so let me try to be clearer.

People react negatively when you bring that stuff up because you come off as a racist with an axe to grind. Whether they're familiar with the literature or not (which is, as Tzimisces pointed out, a lot more ambiguous than you're presenting it), they correctly perceive that what you mean is "HURR HURR, THOSE DARKIES..." and they don't take you seriously after that.

Again, to be clear. I think the freakout is not about violence statistics or test scores, though people will dispute the causes and people unfamiliar with the literature may argue those are not the facts. It's about the fact that a racist dork is trying to bait them into a conversation about how "those darkies are inferior, so we should cut their welfare benefits or send them back to Africa or something."

I admire Tzimisces because of his breadth of scholarship, willingness to be articulate, and almost child-like ability to engage with other posters as though they're serious no matter how absurd they seem to be. I'm a lesser person, so I just mock.

The only people who would think I'm racist are people unwilling to talk frankly about race. In any case, my bringing up black people was parenthetical, an example of my central point: that there are areas which are matters of faith for the Left too. If anything, your and Tz's reaction focusing on that illustrates my point.

Academia is overwhelmingly a left-wing place, something I can say with great experience-- I've been to college, two graduate schools and am now a librarian at a university. I don't think it's possible to have so intellectually homogeneous and politically correct a place not have a million subtle and unsubtle ways to punish straying from the canon. In other words, science in such an atmosphere is probably quite often a poor judge of its own objectivity.

"As YzDc3rYZaj pointed out, there are areas in which Democrats have faith in their beliefs in the face of daily and overwhelming evidence against them"

After which you listed off a few things, to which Tz responded that in fact there was no overwhelming evidence against any of the things on your list. Look at the chain of posts. If we ended up focusing on race (and we did), it seems like it was because you were challenged on several of the other things you asserted are lefty articles of faith, but opted not to argue those points. I think that says more about what you believe without evidence than what the left believes without evidence.

Why people react so negatively to "talk(ing) frankly about race" with you might be more understandable if we take the conversation one step forward, so let's do that. Let's assume we both agree on the two facts you asserted. What follows from that? Where would the conversation go?

I've also been through graduate school and I didn't encounter the intellectual homogeneity you're describing, though I was mixing primarily with Econ and Business faculty. But even an imperfect set of peers is likely to produce more accurate conclusions than a group consisting only of oneself, don't you think?

As to evidence, what form do you think it would take? Studies? Imagine Harvard professors in the 19th century saying that racism and sexism (words not yet in use, of course) don't exist because there haven't been any data about it collected or articles published. Point being? Reality isn't limited to the academically fashionable or academically professionally profitable-- neither of which a finding that implies that the Left takes its opinions as much from emotion as anyone does, qualifies as. It'd be quite an intellectually and financially independent scholar that would suggest that out loud, and they're pretty rare. That's why I remarked that science only looks for what society can accept-- there will always be conclusions that some people wish not to be true, whether that's the Catholic Church with Galileo's contradiction of Aristotle or, modernly, The Bell Curve and its critics.

As to conversations about race, which two facts are we hypothesizing? I've made quite a few statements in the course of this discussion.

True, business and econ schools tend to be further to the right, and so, closer to the center, at least on non-numerical things. (Faith doesn't arise so much in business, which is why it's a major force against wars over morality.)

And I agree with the following sentence, but then again, I wasn't using a group consisting only of myself. I was using a group consisting of years' and years' worth of interactions with members of the academic communities. My experience tells me that the Left is perhaps the most prominent example of Chesterton's remark that people use their intelligence to find reasons to support their intuition. (He said it about women, actually, but I think it's not limited that way.) The problem is not that they do that, since people everywhere do that, but that they then think they believe it for the reasons. Because they can argue that it's for those reasons, there will then be no proving what their actual motive was.

"That's why I remarked that science only looks for what society can accept-- there will always be conclusions that some people wish not to be true, whether that's the Catholic Church with Galileo's contradiction of Aristotle or, modernly, The Bell Curve and its critics."

Sure, I agree there's an element of inertia in science. Probably most so in the social sciences. But the scientific community at least provides a check such that when some result gains acceptance, especially if it's unpopular, we can be sure there's at least some meat on it. There may be ideas out there being pushed by thinkers which are correct but not yet accepted by science, but in general we should be more skeptical than not of theories that can't gain a level of acceptance among the people who ought to know. I've read The Bell Curve and that argument is far from cut and dried (the authors also don't help themselves with their policy recommendations). But that's straying a bit from the point.

In your original post you cited two specific examples of things the Left believes in spite of overhwelming evidence: "for example, in the idea that the behavior of people rarely changes in response to government solutions in such a way as to ruin the logic and effect of those solutions. Or that government spending rarely or never causes inflation."

To which Tz replied, paraphrasing, "Dude I think only the liberals in your head believe those things (at least as absolutely as they're stated), and here are some facts to show there isn't overwhelming evidence to contradict them anyway." The two above are the propositions on which you could have argued the point about overhwelming evidence by showing evidence.

I agree with you that the fact that some on the left take some things on faith or come from emotional motivations on some issues, at least as much as anyone, is a fact. But does having an emotional motivation matter if the facts favor you? Surely it's better to deeply believe in a position for which you can martial good evidence than in one for which you can't?

As to race, I'm talking about these two statements:

"that black Americans aren't of slightly lower intelligence on average or, at present, much more violent than any other group."

Let's assume we don't argue about the facts - what do you think follows from that?

I apologize in advance for the length of this reply. I tried cutting it down, but failed.

I generally like Tz, but he or she has no idea what liberals I've met or read. In fact I live in a poorer mixed neighborhood of Philadelphia, where Republicans are few and far between. I don't bother collecting examples like some nutcase keeping a log of his grievances. But whenever I've had some recent occurrences to cite, such as the braided chain of bad decisions that the lives of the poor people I've been living around amount to, the first thing the liberals I'm talking with do is find some reason why it doesn't have to be true that most of the depth of poor people's situation is the result of what's in their heads and not of external circumstances. There is simply no getting them to see an impermissible conclusion like that, and I've mostly stopped bothering to try. But when someone claims that there's no such thing as an impermissible conclusion for the Left-- that I cannot let pass. In fact, in a nice irony, it's an impermissible conclusion for many of them that there are impermissible conclusions for them. I think it comes from the fact that rationality is such a point of pride among them.

Does having an emotional motivation matter if the facts favor you? Facts have no interpretive value by themselves; it's only in conjunction with values that they do. "Gay people have no choice about their emotions," has nothing to do with gay marriage without adding "and we value liberty and equal treatment before the law." In any case, it's not often that facts in conjunction with values only favor one conclusion; the efficiency of political equilibrium ensures that. One set of facts and values argues for one side, and one set of facts and values argues for the other. My argument is that rational people would acknowledge all the facts, and that the Left in general tries to avoid or discredit inconvenient ones. And, frankly, politically unprofitable ones like that what's-inside-their-heads one. If Democrats were genuinely in favor of helping the poor, their roster of proposed programs would include things that will help the poor without a political upside, like getting them photo IDs, or, worse, might risk poor people not voting for them, like financial education.

This leads us to the race thing. What follows from those facts, in my opinion, is that the devaluing of mental qualities in favor of emotional ones (including thin-skinned pride, anger and violence) among black people is the direct result of fifty years' worth of the Left's constant deference to, apology for and exculpation of black people and black culture. As someone once said about what Robert Redford was really like, "what would you be like if you hadn't heard the word 'no' for thirty years?" Israel's ugliness stems, similarly, from Republican deference. Are there excellent black people? Absolutely, and I'm glad to know some. But if not exactly right-wing, they're the least left-wing ones I know. Have Democrats acknowledged any responsibility of their political priorities for the decline of black family, community and prosperity? Not in my hearing or reading, they haven't, and living where I do, I hear them a lot.

Today combined federal, state, and local government spending is = 42% of GDP. At current rates of growth, government will consume 100% of GDP within 58 years....and there is nothing you Republicans can do to stop us !!!

We are the liberal progressive democrat media and we will make darn sure that the sheep (voters) don't realize that government will soon control everything !!

We will ask small town Republican mayors about the conflict in Somalia...which is completely irrelevant to their job.

We will ask Republican presidential candidates about the age of the earth...which is completely irrelevant to their job.

We will do everything we can to keep the sheep occupied while we quietly grow the size and the power of government...until government controls everything !! And there is nothing you Republicans can do to stop us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, you could try to put forth a coherent vision of fiscal discipline and personal freedom, shown not just in words but also through the actions of those in office. (Real balanced budgets, effective delivery of key services, keeping the government out of personal medical or other life decisions.) And forming adjectives.

I don't think "try.." is representative of Republicans. This a subspecies which is actually a tiny part of the population, but serves the useful purpose of bringing conservatives generally into disrepute.

Uh, useful for whom? Certainly not for the traditional conservatives (as opposed to the reactionaries pretending to be conservatives). I seriously doubt that good old Big Bill Buckley would have many kind words for those demented reactionaries of today arrogating the right to speak for conservatives...

"A whole new crop of Democrats & Republicans will run for election to be President. The Republican party will most likely react positively to redefine themselves over the next couple of years, while the Democrats will probably see no need to change or improve. In four years the Democrats are more at risk of losing the White House than they will expect."

However, I do not think that Marco Rubio will be successful in the primaries for other reasons than outlines in the above blog posting. Marco Rubio probably will not even make it to the Republican Convention in 2016.

The question voters should really be asking is" "how come no one asks democrats how old they think the earth is" ??
Picture Obama...speaking to a Black church in a midwestern swing state just before the elections. Would a CNN reporter yell out the question: "did God create the earth?"
Why doesn't this ever happen? What is it that the liberal progressive media is trying to achieve? What is their hidden agenda?? Just think about it folks. This has nothing to do with how old politicians think the earth is...or else democrats would be getting the same question. So what the media's real agenda? Think.

Come on barbama...open up your mind. Most democrats either collect welfare, or else they have college degrees in civil protest, gender studies, or community activist. Dude...you what I'm saying is true.

.... not sure why this incident is worthy of reporting - I am much more interested in learning whether Rubio knows the air speed of a heavily laden swallow - come on Economist - you're better than this

Actually, no. The Economist is not better than this. There is little difference these days between The Economist and Peoples Magazine or Hollywood Gossip Magazine. TE is wholly owned by the the left most wing of the democrat party.

With all due respect, you are comparing Apples Vs. Oranges. I pay $29 for 13 weeks of The Economist: about $2.23 an issue. Do you seriously think there is a way to compare that to a publication that thinks the most pressing issue is whether Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston ever et back together?

This is why I enjoy The Economist. It does not waste my time telling me about Jennifer Aniston or Dancing With The Stars. Now, if Jennifer Aniston ever wrote an article criticizing the Fed’s Quantitative Easing, The Economist might well publish that as a Guest article.

Why all this brouhaha on the age of the earth. Let people believe what they choose, if you do not want them to be your president, don't elect them. Simple!

Science is a wide brush, to put scientific work on the age of the earth on the same footing as the knowledge on how the heart works, is not only wrong, but irresponsible. Real scientists know that there are two types of science facts, observed and extrapolated. Extrapolation cannot exist without assumptions to accompany the facts we know, who says we will not discover another fact of small particle physics and realize that the age of the earth is actually half, double or even a tenth of what we think it is today. Even Einstein has made wrong assumptions.

To force people to accept pseudo-science is not only wrong, but a disservice to science. The guys is not saying the moon is 1 mile away!

For Earth to be merely of Biblical age, the science need to be off not "half, doble or 'even' a tenth", but a factor of around half a million. Earth is not double or ten times older than the evangelists say, not even 1000 times older, but half A MILLION times older.

That why it is such a big deal. If I was saying you were born 20 minutes ago, while everything does in fact point towards you being at least 20 years old, giveor take a few, it would be pretty ludicrous. This is the same.

let us be aware that it is not all religion, but specifically abrahamic religions that are hung up on the 4004 BCE or similar silliness about the age of the earth. eastern religions have vastly greater -- and far more scientific -- ideas about creation. i have heard the timeframe of some 4-5 billion years as the age of the earth according to hindu lore. so let us not tar all religions with the 'blind faith' brush.

Wrong! Count Islam out. Islam says nothing about the age of the earth, and Muslims have no problem accepting the earth is a few billion years old. So please stop generalizing.
But fact is know one really knows. It is all conjecture, some more founded than others. But no one really knows for sure.
You may have other reasons to dislike Islam, but this cannot be one of them.

Who cares? What a shoddy piece of journalism. I don't care if the guy thinks the earth is forty minutes old, I care about the policies he would attempt to push if he ran for president. The author attempted to turn this very clearly "lets laugh at the religious person for not parroting our glorious dogmatic Empirical Naturalism philosophies" article into something relevant, but failed.

If I want to read philosophical hypocrisy, I'll go to reditts atheism forum. I come to the Economist for intelligent discussion on economic trends and policies. Too bad they dropped the ball here.

"Who cares? What a shoddy piece of journalism. I don't care if the guy thinks the earth is forty minutes old, I care about the policies he would attempt to push if he ran for president."

If the guy thinks the earth is forty minutes old, or six thousand years old, there's a good chance that his policies would be idiotic. You don't need to be a genius to work that out. And my guess is that guest-innlwen, you are no genius.

Really? "Theres a good chance..." based on what? Do you have some Empirical Evidence you'd like to use to back that up? Or are you just operating on baseless assumptions that there is direct correlation between someones thoughts concerning the earth's age and economics?

Don't worry Anjin-San. Obama has a chance to put science front and center and squeeze out disproved and unnecessary belief systems. And to make social safety nets and heath entitlements central...and squeeze out the need for the church. It will be great. The Great Freeing of society from its medievalist religionist yoke.

Just so you know, anecdotal evidence is evidence. You had not made any claim it was statistical evidence, nor implied or otherwise represented. Sigh....what is passed for knowledge in these blogs is so sub-par, and the lack of awareness is disturbing.

I'm a scientist and i do NOT believe the Earth to be 4.5 Bn years old. The writer of this article doesnt know his facts, but childishly listens to what the media portrays as "Fact", an opinion also copied by the deluded bloggers here. The age of the earth is NOT known, so stop mocking what you do not understand. For most honest scientists I have discussed this with, the Theory of evolution is "a best fit theory", as much a fact as the flat earth in pre-renaissance times.

You confusing the age of the planet, as measured by physics, with evolution. Sorry, but the entire body of physics would have to be ignored in order to believe the age of the planet is not well established.

Notice that Mr. Davies has not stated whether he doesn't accept the figure of 4.5 Bn years because it could be anywhere from 4.3 to 4.7 Bn years, or because he believes it to be only a few thousand years old.

Just out of sheer curiosity, what kind of scientist are you? Meaning, what discipline, within what is commonly understood to be science, do you practice? You don't happen to be a creation scientist, do you? If you really are a doctor (PhD) in science, what was your thesis written about? Nothing particular, just in general will do. No need to identify your thesis advisors; or your alma mater. All I wish to establish is your bona fides in general, so that I will have an idea how to interpret your rather bold assertion regarding not knowing the age of Earth. If it is not much trouble, of course. It is customary in science to make references to one's peer reviewed work; and I am merely following long-established customs and protocols. Oh, by the way, the Greeks have calculated the Earth's curvature long before the renaissance ; and the distance from the Earth to the the Sun. A little research into this will even explain their way of doing all that rather accurately for their times.

The author of the blog posting writes – “When divine explanations and scientific truths are given equal footing, no armistice can be accepted. Rather, science must continue to forcefully rebut religion's unsubstantiated claims in public battles like this.”

It is counterproductive and grossly misses the mark for “science… to forcefully rebut religion's unsubstantiated claims”. Religion is really not the issue.

It is much much more productive to champion education reform across-the-board throughout the USA. A multitude of our problems would be solved through education reform.

Also, any moron can, with the aid of her Google, discover that there's no reason to suppose organic food would be better for either the environment or a person's health. But that's apparently beyond Michelle Obama, and her husband seems set on subsidizing her ludicrous fantasy with my tax dollars.
-
Also, I would love to hear Barack Obama describe the Theory of Comparative Advantage. I'm suspicious that he is anti-science on that count.

Actually, Whippersnapper -
Organic fertilizers sufficient in nitrogen are better for the environment than the production of carbon-based synthetic fertilizers, and -
Any non-pesticide farming methods which help keep pesticides out of the environment (pyrethroids and organophosphates, to start) are a good thing.

Michelle Obama's advocacy has been focused on improving nutrition (not specifically "organic" foods), and combatting obesity. These are worthwhile goals. If a few cents of your taxes happen to be spent in some way contrary to your wishes, that' just too bad. No one gets to choose how their tax dollars are allocated.

I have no problem with the First Lady using her bully pulpit to encourage healthy eating but people need to stop with the "if you don't like it, too bad" argument. If we don't like it, we can advocate change. If you don't like people advocating change, too bad.

I'm not part of cult Whippersnapper. I'm a farmer. Got a degree and everything.

And, the USDA says that you're full of bird, uh, per the following -

"Organic farming systems rely on ecologically based practices such as cultural and biological pest management, exclusion of all synthetic chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones in crop and livestock production."

For example, I actually worked on my compost pile today. Rather than pay the county to haul off our organic matter, we compost it, and farm with it. Don't have to fill no landfill, and so it's more ecological. We just reuse it, and larger farmers just do it on a larger scale.

WhR certainly does have the the right to make ridiculous complaints, and I have the right to ridicule them. Actually, I rather like it when people make ridiculous complaints on a public forum. It's a source of great amusement.

Nobody is saying organic farming isn't organic. But what's the point? I can see some theoretical benefits of biodiversity but that's about it. It still uses pesticides, just organic ones. It's more resource intensive. Composting probably increases greenhouse emissions. There are no taste or health benefits.

And may provide health benefits to consumers depending upon his/her reactions to certain synthetic compounds.

In addition, composted soils are more sustainable, and have more "tilth". That's why farmers - especially vegetable farmers and small-scale gardeners - tend to use compost when possible. It also provides a market for the millions of tons of animal manure produced worldwide.

And ultimately, organically-grown products have a market. Some people just want them, just like some people want to buy I-Phones.

The demand alone provides its own justification, which makes sense given that we function within a market-based system.

No one gets to choose how their tax dollars are allocated.
-
Yes we do. Damn it man, we had a revolution about this.
-
"The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 includes a five-fold increase in mandatory funding for organic programs over funds mandated in the previous legislation, and authorizes additional funding for many of these programs. Most of the mandatory funds are for two existing organic programs--the organic research program and cost-share assistance program to help growers and handlers with organic certification costs. The legislation includes new organic provisions on credit, trade, and crop insurance. Organic provisions are also included in the Conservation Title for the first time, and are aimed at helping producers with the transition to organic farming systems."
-
It was also in the stimulus.
-
It has absolutely no basis in science. It comes from this nitwit called Rudolf Steiner who had some sort of pseudo-religion called Anthroposophy. There is zero, zero, reason to use crops developed by bombardment with radiation (organic) rather than GM crops (non-organic). Both are perfectly safe. Also, all food is by definition "organic", the title is rediculous.

The demand alone provides its own justification, which makes sense given that we function within a market-based system.

No it does not! It proves people are morons. By this logic the fact that there's a market for creationist science proves it's right. People also choose not to vaccinate their children, because they are idiots. People are idiots, that there are people who are idiots does not mean their behavior is not idiotic.

synthetic pesticide

It uses pesiticides! There is no reason "organic" pesticides like cyanide are better for the surrounding the community.

Uses lower-cost resources depending on input price points

No it doesn't. The cheapest product probably has the lowest inputs, and those aren't the organics. Fertilizer isn't even that large a share of the energy you need, it's mostly in transportation.

In addition, composted soils are more sustainable

It is not sustainable if organic agriculture would not support the world's population, which it won't. There's a reason Norman Borlaug got the Nobel Peace Prize for delivering us out of a primitive past of mass starvation and famine, aka organic agriculture. This is all wonderful, but industrial GM agriculture FEEDS PEOPLE! which is the point of farming. It's not a feel-good club for hippies.

Look, the organic label was not designed with any scientific reason behind it that would make it healthier. In fact, the two are usually chemically identical products. That's precisely why organic foods cannot be advertised as healthier for you than inorganic foods, because it will land you with a suit for false advertising. It has not, I repeat, has not been proven to have any systemic relationship with healthfulness.

And hell man, if you don't believe me, there's the Mayo Health Clinic, The American Academy of Pediatricians, Norman Borlaug, and here's the verdict from probably the best study so far out of Stanford...http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html

No. That is the answer. It is not any better for you, it is simply a scam to make you pay more.

So, if people buy a product you don't like, they're therefore morons? If I have an IPod and you don't, does that therefore make me a moron?

"There is no reason 'organic' pesticides like cyanide are better for the surrounding community."

Some farms use no pesticides at all. Mixed cropping, healthy soils, use of predators, etc., can knock back some pests so that an organic crop can be economic.

"The cheapest product probably has the lowest inputs, and those aren't the organics."

That's an overly simple statement from someone with a strong back ground in economics. Sometimes the cheapest products come from the largest farms, and are sold in large population centers.

If your farm is so large that you turn a tractor once ever 20 minutes at the end of 1/2 mile rows, you'll save a lot of jack and are more likely to grow an inexpensive product.

"It is not sustainable if organic agriculture would not support the world's population, which it won't."

You just changed the goalposts, Whippersnapper. I'm talking about soil sustainability.

Organics are a niche product, like Audis. No one is saying organics will feed the world, at least no one I'm aware of.

And, GMO cotton has been a God-send in allowing much lower pesticide applications on cotton crops, helping both the bottom line, and the workers who would otherwise have to spray it.

"There's a reason Norman Borlaug got the Nobel Peace Prize for delivering us out of a primitive past of mass starvation and famine, aka organic agriculture."

Borlaug had a Ph.D in plant pathology and genetics, developed high-yield wheat varieties, and introduced modern ag practices to Mexico, Pakistan and India.

However, that doesn't mean that we all have to eat wheat fertilized with diammonium phosphate, ammonium nitrate, or urea. It's a free market, and there's a market for organic products, including organic wheat.

"It has not, I repeat, has not been proven to have any systemic relationship with healthfulness."

This statement is incorrect. Ever test the groundwater near Fresno, California? What did you find? Any pesticide residue, per chance? How is that healthful?

I don't understand all this resentment about health food and healthy food. You can't pay me to eat a hormone fed chicken with breasts bigger than 4 Dolly Partons. I stopped eating antibiotic raised prawns for years now.... A friend fed them to her cat as staple. The cat was sick from some bacteria one time, taken to the vet and the vet told my friend there is no antibiotic to treat the poor cat because her blood is full of antibiotic already.... And it is totally untrue organic produce don't taste different. Simply not true. In some, the different is stark - e.g. carrots. Just because a non-idiot can't taste it doesn't mean an idiot can't either or not allowed to, you know. I don't understand that logic. Everything is so strange with these weird folks from GOP. I think the situation has to do with irregularity. And the way to ameliorate the problem is to administer healthy food.
.
Anyway, glad you worked on you compost today. :)

That's an overly simple statement from someone with a strong back ground in economics. Sometimes the cheapest products come from the largest farms, and are sold in large population centers.

If your farm is so large that you turn a tractor once ever 20 minutes at the end of 1/2 mile rows, you'll save a lot of jack and are more likely to grow an inexpensive product.

...Labor is an input, a factor of production. Returns from scale are a way to produce more with the same inputs. The question is productive efficiency, and that's how you do it.

Look, the organic food people would be fine if it was just themselves wasting money, but we live in a world where organizations like Green Peace convince 3rd world countries to reject GM Food Aid and let their people starve.

Also, it's just a form of conspicuous consumption. Rich people can afford higher grocery bills, and that's why people think it's good. Just like big watches. But it's a problem when this wasteful consumption is portrayed as virtue. We have a left that complains, with some justification, about the haves and have-nots. But when it comes to food, the have-nots are falsely accused of killing the polar bears. Not cool. At least no one is going on about how Audi owners are morally superior to the hoi-poloi, Chevy Volts however... If the first-family wants to set example, they should do so by consuming like the average American family can actually afford, and that is not organic.

THE! problem with food today is that it's too expensive, and because it's too expensive people's household income is lower, or even worse, they can't afford it.

And, I've purposely walked into clouds of Azinphos-methyl as it's being sprayed to be sure that the coverage is correct, and to avoid sending apples with codling moth worms to market.

However, some folks don't want Azinphos-methyl on their apples. They want apples with no pesticides sprayed on them at all.

Actually, I've worked on an apple orchard too, although I confess my labor was purely manual. The problem with the organic label is it isn't related to any of the concerns you've mentioned. There are organic pesticides, and they aren't necessarily any better for either the environment or the consumer. Instead there's technology, like sprayers that can see the tree so they spray only the tree rather than dousing the whole orchard. That saves on costs, but it also reduces the amount of pollution.

And you mentioned GM cotton, which has been a huge success because it reduces the amount of pesticide you have to use, as you mentioned. But the organic label means they are not using this product, and are probably instead using more pesticides.

I also worked on a dairy farm (although the money was mostly just breeding), and as far as the dairy industry goes there are problems with BGH. But that's not because as was falsely claimed, it's present in the milk. It isn't, that was all bunk. It's just that it can raise production over what the cow can really handle. There is also too much antibiotic use in America's dairy herd, but at the same time the organic standards are absolutely ridiculous.

Instead of treating antibiotics as something that should be used rarely, they essentially ban it. If a cow gets sick, you basically can't use it for milk if you're selling it as "organic" for some ridiculous amount of time, like six months. Antibiotics don't get in the god-dern milk! The problem is just that people use them to milk more than they should which causes infections, which is bad. Instead farmers wind up not treating their herd properly, because taking care of them means they aren't organic.

It's not like pesticide or antiobiotic use, or any of these other things aren't an issue. But they are completely tangential to "organic". The risks associated with over-use of these things have nothing, nothing, to do with some German cult from the turn of the century, or with the Luddite back-to-the-land prejudices of Dave Mathews fans.

Ash, people can't tell the difference in blind taste tests. And organic is not the same thing as healthful. An organic apple is just as good for you as a normal one, and cheaper. And organic ice cream just as bad.

And I'm not saying organic food should be banned. I also don't think that the government should force kids to get vaccinated. But if you don't, because you believe they cause down syndrome, your kids may well get sick and die. If you believe the government shouldn't be worried about the decisions we make, then you believe that individuals should. And that's about combating misinformation.

Now, there have been studies on this subject, the evidence is that there is no relationship between a label of food as organic and is healthfulness. If you want to claim that this is untrue, then you need some basis in science, but on this subject, the scientific consensus is it is just bunk. But if you choose to believe something that is demonstrably incorrect, then you really shouldn't condemn Creationists.

Given the greater knowledge displayed by some other commenters I should perhaps leave this to them, but I think you're conflating a few different things here.

First, the studies that have shown organics to be no more healthful than regular food pertain to its nutrition. Organics do tend towards having less pesticides, though organic pesticides can be harmful too (I know that it is an organic pesticide that is associated with Parkinsons disease for instance). However, for some agricultural products, like apples, organics do have significantly less pesticide and since the long term effects of exposure to the pesticides are not well understood it can't be stated unequivocally that there is no long term health benefit to avoiding these pesticides. It's simply speculative at this point and confined to a handful of foods that are known to have particularly high pesticide loads.

Second, some people are allergic to certain pesticides. My uncle for instance buys organic because he gets an allergic reaction to some traditional pesticides and finds it easier to just avoid the bunch. He agrees there is no known health benefit, it's just an allergy thing.

Third, there is a difference between meeting minimum organic standards and what some farmers do. For those environmentally concerned, it is possible to locate organic farmers that use extremely low pesticide methods and that are highly invested in soil conserving methods. That these methods are not what is generally used for the organics in a major supermarket which are produced by larger suppliers doesn't mean that some organic farmers are not using traditional methods.

Fourth, there's the GMO issue. I agree this is stupid and really like GMOs. It's unfortunate that there are not GMOs grown using organic methods.

Basically I don't see what you're getting so worked up about with regards to organics. The health benefits have been known to be suspect for some time, I don't think there's a lot of disagreement here except with low information consumers. The recent reports on the subject are the nail in this coffin, but it remains a valid, if only weakly grounded, concern that long term pesticide exposure may be dangerous since this has proven a difficult area to get convincing data on. There are substantial grounds to believe that soil conservation and pollution are less with organic farming, but this is often true of GMOs as well. But you can't take the claim that there are no health benefits to organics to also denigrate other claims regarding their benefits since these have never been touted as the sole, or even primary (this was always environmental), benefit to organics.

I'm going to second Tzimices' thought that you seem to be getting really worked up about something, and I'm unclear why. I also agree with him that you seem to be conflating a couple of different issues.

First, you're contention that food is expensive, in the US anyway, is not correct. In the US, as a percent of income as well as evidenced by any visit to WalMart (and the customers there), food is cheap. I just bought a one pound package of hot dogs for $1.08 there last week, for example, which will last us a week.

Organic food, however, is more expensive. If you can afford it, you can buy it, just like buying a Mercedes. I don't believe I have heard you criticize those who buy Mercedes, or I-Phones, or Rolex watches as conspicuous consumption. And, organic bok choi is a lot cheaper than a Rolex.

A neighbor of mine runs a composting yard, where he charges $10 a pickup load to take yard waste and animal manure, composts the material, and then sells the finished product. Given that there is a burn ban in the area, its one of the few options for those with yard wastes. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this, and view it as an economic use of a product that would otherwise go to waste.

Third, the environmental argument of the production of organics - and against conventional pesticide use - under certain circumstances, is strong.

We live in an established fruit growing area, where many of the local soils are contaminated with arsenic, given that arsenic was used as a pesticide in years past.

Local schools which have been built on old orchard land had the top three feet of soil removed, and replaced with healthful soils, before the schools were built. To claim that there isn't a contamination problem with pesticide us is, I would suggest, not consistent with the facts.

Fourth, to claim that there is no difference between organic and conventionally produced products is just not correct.

I can visually see a difference on the shelf between organic and conventional red delicious apples in stores.

Conventional apples are typically less "punky" (i.e., firmer), have a stronger sheen on them, and appear to be more shelf-stable (perhaps due to a fungicide placed in the materials used to wash them). In my view, conventionally-grown apples are a lot better. However, if someone prefers to purchase an organic apple, okay by me.

Regarding anti-biotics and BGH, this is a bit outside of my expertise, and sounds like it may be an abuse of some of those within the organic movement.

However, on the plant side, to claim that the use of compostable materials on soils is not a good farming practice - which I think you may be implying - is not correct.

And, to claim that there is something unseemly about providing the products of sustainable farm methods to a buying public, I would also argue is incorrect. Sustainable farming methods are a good thing, especially if it's economic.

And, if I can save a few bucks by composting farm waste instead of paying for urea down at the local farm store, then that's good, too. The invisible hand at work. :)

But if you choose to believe something that is demonstrably incorrect, then you really shouldn't condemn Creationists.

Excellent! Now let's both go by that assertion.

Blind test on taste - Just because you can't doesn't mean the whole world can't. I submit to you carrot is easy to tell. Most people can. Try the juice. Admittedly I haven't pulled outa "scienctific' study complete with hypothesis testing to back it up. Neither have you. In terms of my own taste buds, I'd rather trust them than yours.

On healthiness value. I agree with you. The nutrition in an organic apple probably is identical to that of a conventional one. But as someone pointed out, you are conflating apple and orange. The organic (no pun) people are not comparing the two apples on their nutritional content. They are pointing out the pesticide not present on the skin of the organic removes the concern about the ingestion of pesticide. Again, Dialectic may be able to pull out some "scientific" study here for you. I could too if that is what will convince you (in the framework of Non-Creationism).

On banning anything. The only food I have read about that is banned at this time is TRANSFAT, and as GH1816 informed me, hormones in poultry. Both for good reasons. Now we have oodles of scientific studies providing the rationale for banning those two things. They are really bad for you. There is enough evidence hormones taken into the body in that way is a carcinnogen. As to Transfat, it causes cardivascular blockage in accumulation. I don't think cardio doctors are all quacks. I tend to trust more what they tell me than a God-fearing but not Trasfat-fearing Creationist. If both are bad science, I'd still go with the former.

On vaccination, one of the issues is public health. If one child has whooping cough, the rest of the kids in the classroom also get it. And they spread the cough to more people when they go home, and they spread to more, etc. Whooping cough is no fun. If you don't believe that, try it. I recommend, to test your theory that vaccination for infectious diseases is some Furher's way of controlling his subject, go get polio and run for the Presidency of USA.

Now on good label. I agree there is no relationship between organic and nutritional value (see supra). I am not sure anyone ever claims there is. I certainly don't. If you eat some silly 4-oz organic yogart which sole ingredients are organic food coloring, organic cane sugar, organic milk from cows that are fed on organic feed, and then call it the day for the day in terms of what you eat for that day, you have a mental problem (btw called Eating Disorder). The cure of the problem is get that dumb person to eat some real food and in fair amounts, organic or not organic. Pesticide is no longer the primary concern, but secondary or even tertiary. But most ffolks who eat organic do not weigh 64 lbs on a 5' 6" body, nor even a Democrat.

On misinformation, I believe you are holding on to a few. Big Gulps are not good for you. I has zero nutritional value and taken in unreasonably large quantities predisposes you, over time, in accumulation, to Type II diabetes. That is science, although in the mam-made creation part of it, it is 100% Creationism.

I typed this up in a huge rush as I have to rush to prepare a free range turkey, which btw, has breasts no larger than 34b and tastes better. Each man unto his own. It is a matter of taste.

Happy Thanksgiving to you, Whipper. Always enjoy talking to you, however different our views are. I don't know why, I just can tell the difference. How? See, it is a matter of brain buds. I can tell Peets from Starbuck, blind test, any time. And lots of people can too, believe it or not. :)

Whipper, as a follow-up to Ash's note and Brookse's above (I meant to sign in as Dialectic, but goofed up and came in as Brookse) -

Regarding apples, one can definitely tell the difference between organic and conventially-grown, as I described in my note above. I can sometimes also see visual differences in vegetables as well, where the organics often have more blemishes and are smaller, in my view.

However, what's missing in the conversation so far, IMHO, is that providing an organic product for sale is a way for the consumer to make a product choice which they feel is better for the environment.

So, if a vegetable buyer wants to buy cabbage which he/she knows wasn't fertilized with urea (a carbon-based product, often produced from natural gas), they can buy organic cabbage and know that that was one little bit less of carbon placed in the atmosphere.

Same with those concerned with the use of synthetic pesticides, and what its use does to the environment, local communities, local ground water, the farm workers who have to spray it, etc. Buy organic cabbage instead of conventional one day, and that's the consumer bit of contribution for a healthier world.

Same with the "buy local" movement. Don't want to buy a tomato grown in California, and bred to withstand 1,000 miles of overland trucking? Great. Buy a local tomato, put a few bucks back in the local community, and that's your contribution to a little healthier local economy. If the tomato grown wasn't bred for long truck rides, it probably tastes better, too.

Same with peaches. Especially with peaches.

Regarding health, I spent years managing orchards with two companies, which grew conventional fruit for decades. My first boss died of a brain tumor at 62, and my second boss's son (who grew up on orchards) developed Parkinson's at 30. It may have been a coincidence that they developed such poor health so early, but I have to wonder.

BTW, two other friends of mine developed brain tumors in this community as well. One died at 56, and the other barely survived his tumor, developed at age 60.

So, I try to stay away from pesticides as much as possible. I figure I've been exposed enough already for a lifetime.

And, if a consumer wants to decrease such exposure to farmers and their families as well by providing them with organic products, I'm all for giving them that choice.

Most definitely one can tell organic produce and conventional. That's not any issue at all. The organic is generally smaller, with blemishes, and MORE FLAVORFUL. Where I grew up, everything grown was organic. There was no such thing as chemical pesticide. The greens that we bought from the markets would usually have little holes eaten by little worms everywhere. Most times the little worms were still on the vegetable. The kitchen workers rinsed them off. I observed even as a child it was always the tenderest stalk, or the plumpest peach, or the reddest Red Delicious that got eaten by worms. My mother explained to me that worms know best when it comes to finding the best to eat. But I digressed. What I meant is the veges we ate in those days were so much more flavorful because they were smaller and grown without synthetic pesticides. This is not something imagined in the head, which is what Whippy refuses to accept.

I'm not an expert on vegetable breeding, but I believe many vegetables commonly found in US supermarkets have been bred for their ability to ship, plus shelf-life and attractiveness, and often to the detriment of eating quality, e.a. tastefulness.

To get a bit technical: I was told in school that the allele on DNA strands linked to redness on both tomatoes and apples, were directly opposite of those for sweetness, so that breeding for greater redness (as preferred by consumers), left tomatoes and apples with less sweetness, and therefore less flavor.

I don't know if this is true, but my experience is that seeds purchased for garden tomatoes provide a more tasteful product than the very red, industrially-produced tomatoes commonly found in stores.

Regarding Red Delicious apples, a number of strains were developed for early redness and harvest (apples harvested during the beginning of a season demand higher prices), and -

For greater redness, in that US consumers typically preferred Red Delicious apples as red as possible.

Ultimately, some varieties of Reds produced became red very early in the season (late August vs. late September), which led to great profits for growers, but a really lousy tasting apple.

Such apples were commonly called "red potatoes" by growers, in recognition of how poor they tasted. Consumer caught on about 12 years ago, and the demand for Red Delicious dropped dramatically.

Many US apple farmers have since converted their orchards from Reds to more tasteful (and less red) varieties like Fujis, Galas, Braeburns, Pink Ladies, Honey Crisps, etc.

Anyway, my guess is that vegetable breeders have found similar trade-offs as well, and might explain why organic vegetables (which may be grown locally), taste better than those grown conventionally, industrially, and far-away.

Buy organic cabbage instead of conventional one day, and that's the consumer bit of contribution for a healthier world.

Same with the "buy local" movement. Don't want to buy a tomato grown in California, and bred to withstand 1,000 miles of overland trucking? Great. Buy a local tomato, put a few bucks back in the local community, and that's your contribution to a little healthier local economy. If the tomato grown wasn't bred for long truck rides, it probably tastes better, too.

No it isn't. Local does not mean it requires less carbon. It takes far more energy to grow tomatoes in Saskatchewan than to ship them in. There are all sorts of gains from trade, from the comparative advantages of different areas, that allow you to produce more with FEWER inputs. That was actually the idea that The Economist was founded to spread. And, it's often faster, and cheaper, to ship over long distances with large scale supply chains than small scale over short distances.

Nor does buying local produce a healthier local economy. The local economy suffers when trade falls. That you overpaid for a product makes the local economy poorer because you are part of it. And, those non-local farmers also lose too.

Again, fertilizer is a relatively small share of the energy required to bring food to market. The closest thing to an estimation of the amount of scarce resources that a product requires, particularly in something like commodities, is, again, THE PRICE! If you are spending more, you are consuming more.

An organic or a local label does not mean that the product uses less carbon, nor does it mean that it uses less pesticide. Organics simply have to use less efficient pesticides, and they have to use less productive methods.

If you are wondering why you ignorance is such a problem, if I'm getting too worked up, it's because it is put into public policy, particularly in Europe. Tariffs on food, promoting local producers, or bans on GM food, reducing yields, CAUSE THERE TO BE LESS FOOD AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMERS! And they have a bad tendency to starve to death.

From the 60s on the price of food fell dramatically, due to the Green Revolution. That saved millions from starvation, and the organic movement is an attempt to turn back the clock to a time when India had famines. Unfortunately, the prices haven't continued to fall, and part of that is that GM products that could help feed people are being blocked, too many farms are not adopting modern farming methods, but rather purposely going along with this insane religion so they can charge gullible consumers more, and this "local" crap is reducing trade, which reduces the amount you can produce.

This, just like declining vaccination, is a case of ignorance causing death.

Second, I'm personally talking about the organic and buy local movements in the US, not Europe, and not India. The US laws in this regard are very different, and much less stringent, than those of Europe.

(Regarding India, that's a whole different deal, and involves the ability of farmers to afford high cost modern inputs in a world of little to no access to credit, difficulty in securing collateral amid sketchy rule of law, a lack of modern cold chains and other facilities, etc. I can say from personal experience that the constraints in South Asia are totally different from those found in the West.)

Third, I'm also not talking about GMO crops, which I and others on this thread support.

Fourth, if a locally-produced product provides a better experience for a buyer vs. one produced far-away, that's the market at work. Hence's Ash's preference for locally-produced, organic products.

You can site all the Economist articles you'd like, but if Ash wants organic, locally-produced vegetables, Ash has that right, and the market will provide it.

And, comparative advantage makes it clear that buying lettuce from your neighbor provides a fresher product than shipping it in from El Centro, California.

You can call Ash and the rest of us hippies, cultist, Luddites, ignorant, moronic, delusional, or whatever you'd like. However, personal preference is personal preference. This ain't that hard.

And, this resorting to name-calling stuff is a bit out of hand. You're too smart for that, and don't need to resort to it. Nobody on this string is stupid.

Re your reply to Dialectic, two points I have real hard time agreeing with -

First, who said vaccination is declining. Bill Gates has this project of making sure every child in the developing countries gets vaccinated against polio. As far as I know, the project is ongoing. In my local Walgreen, this year they offer not only flu shots but whooping cough shot and tetanus shot and pneumonia shot. They seem busy enough. People go in to get their shots.

Second, who told you organic groceries always cost more than conventional? In my neighborhood organic market, organic carrots cost exactly the same as conventional sold by Safeway. Same with fruits in season. The organic bread I eat costs less than a popular brand bread made from bleached flour. The store regularly puts my organic bread on a promotion sale. Then it costs a whopping 25% less. Other stuff can be more expensive. But guess what, I eat less than I would otherwise, which brings the benefit of deterring over-eating.
In the end, it all balances out.

On trade and environmental impact of organic farming, I know nothing about either item. So I'll keep my mouth shut. But I do want to say you may have a prejudice against organic food that is not warranted.

Re your reply to Dialectic, two points I have real hard time agreeing with -

First, who said vaccination is declining. Bill Gates has this project of making sure every child in the developing countries gets vaccinated against polio. As far as I know, the project is ongoing. In my local Walgreen, this year they offer not only flu shots but whooping cough shot and tetanus shot and pneumonia shot. They seem busy enough. People go in to get their shots.

Second, who told you organic groceries always cost more than conventional? In my neighborhood organic market, organic carrots cost exactly the same as conventional sold by Safeway. Same with fruits in season. The organic bread I eat costs less than a popular brand bread made from bleached flour. The store regularly puts my organic bread on a promotion sale. Then it costs a whopping 25% less. Other stuff can be more expensive. But guess what, I eat less than I would otherwise, which brings the benefit of deterring over-eating.
In the end, it all balances out.

On trade and environmental impact of organic farming, I know nothing about either item. So I'll keep my mouth shut. But I do want to say you may have a prejudice against organic food that is not warranted.

Thanks much much for your detailed reply to me on tomatoes and apples. What I have found is no tomatoes seem to have any taste any more. Even the heirloom. It is so strange - they all look so good, perfectly formed, evenly red, plump and firm. But they have no taste. I remember just 8 or 10 years ago, tomatoes had taste. My brother grows his own tomatoes in his backyard. 10 years ago, they were wonderful. Now they have no taste. He has tried a few different seeds. They all come out exactly as the picture on the envelop, perfect and pretty, but they have no taste.

I had no idea there were that many kinds of apples. In Asia, people are fond of Red Delicious. Those would be imported from US. They generally are very waxy on the skin. I was told it is wax and it is put on the fruit to prevent spoilage. Honey Crisp is very expensive in Whole Foods. I never buy it. Another fruit that has lost a lot of taste is strawberries. The organic grown in Watsonville, CA are small and taste much more flavorful. And not expensive at all. The humongous ones have no taste, and not cheap (I don't know if they are conventional).

No one is debating banning organic food, but what people have debated, and have done!, is ban non-organic food.

This is a major cause of human suffering. When Zambia was in the middle of a famine, Greenpeace convinced the government to reject American food aid, by lying to the Zambian government that it was a secret American plot to sterilize Africa. The President called it "poison", people went hungry, people starved, all while Food sat in Zambia untouched. Greenpeace crowed, ""This decision is a triumph of national sovereignty". Monsters is too nice a word for these people.

But what makes it possible is bad science, spread by people in the West who can afford ignorance and then choose to cloak it as humanitarianism. The self-inflicted inconvenience of westerners IS related to the government-inflicted deaths in the 3rd world.

Every claim about the virtues of "organic" is scientifically false. They are more healthful, conventional foods do not have an unsafe amount of pesticides, it is not better for the environment as loose a description as that is. All of this is backed up by scientific study. Now, you can buy these products anyway, but you can not make any of these claims and be correct. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but as for facts, you are just wrong. You do have a responsibility to not spread misinformation.

As for price, it is not impossible that the cheapest product would be local or organic or whatever, but if that label shouldn't be factoring into your decision at all. As for the idea that organic is somehow cheaper, anecdotes aside, it clearly generally isn't, Ash. As for the idea that buying label or organic, or fair-trade, or whatever is "your good deed for the day", Dialectic, NO IT ISN'T! No kudos. It's good you want to do something decent, but if you're buying something organic instead that is a problem. When we wind up at the pearly gates, St. Peter in his infinite wisdom will have at least a rudimentary understanding of economics at his disposal. Buy the normal food, and donate the extra money to an actual charitable cause.

And yes, the vaccination rate of children with health care in the US has been falling.

"According to data reported by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), a nonprofit group that evaluates health care protocols and policies and recommends improvements, the share of children with health insurance receiving the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) fell from 93.5% in 2008 to 90.6% in 2009. For diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough the drop was from 87.2% to 85.4%. For chicken pox it was 92% to 90.6%. The data came from an analysis of 1,000 health plans covering 118 million people."

Anecdotes are nice, but facts are better.

Now you're saying you don't think there's a problem with GM products, but since "organic" does have a problem with GM products, can you just admit the classification is wrong.

And, this resorting to name-calling stuff is a bit out of hand. You're too smart for that, and don't need to resort to it. Nobody on this string is stupid.

It's not that you don't know things, it's that the things you know are not true. If you confronted with a statistically significant result saying that something is true, you can either say you're goin' with faith and bein' unscientific, duck the question like Rubio, demonstrate scientifically it isn't right, or accept it. There's no other option.

Whippersnapper, with all due respect, you appear to understand neither the science or economics of organics. For example, you wrote:

"No one is debating banning organic food, but what people have debated, and have done!, is ban non-organic food."

There is not such thing as "non-organic" food. All food is carbon-based, and therefore organic. The correct term is "conventionally-produced".

BTW, where has conventionally-produced food been banned?

Regarding GMOs, enough already. Nobody on this string is arguing against GMOs.

Regarding Zim, some people demagogue GMOs, and in my view they're knuckleheads.

However, the whole US food-for-peace and similar programs, where tons of food (with US gov price-supports) are supplied annually to developing countries, is highly controversial, and especially in Africa. Many economist view it as a form of dumping to support the US ag industry, and claim that it deters the development of local industries.

However, I'm not supporting Mugabe's actions, who's done plenty of dumb things as "president" (or something) of Zim for a whole series of lifetimes.

"It's not that you don't know things, it's that the things you know are not true."

Actually Whippersnapper, I'd argue that you've come up short regarding factual statements in a number of ways on this string. For example:

"An organic or a local label does not mean that the product uses less carbon, nor does it mean that it uses less pesticide."

It does mean that no carbon was used to produce nitrogen fertilizer, the most important component to economic yields. If you can get reasonable yields using manure, then you've used no carbon-based synthetic fertilizers for your crop nitrogen needs.

And this one:

"That you overpaid for a product makes the local economy poorer because you are part of it."

Prices meet demand, and organic vs. conventionally-produced are different products. If Ash's demand meets the local supply of organics, Ash isn't overpaying, but rather is paying market price. You used to know this.

"Every claim about the virtues of 'organic' is scientifically false."

This is an indication that you are unfamiliar with ag production, whether organic, conventional, industrial, or simple home gardens.

First (again), organically-produced crops use no carbon-based synthetic fertilizers.

Second, many organic farmers use no pesticides. Again, by moving away from monocultures, using crop specie interplants, maintaining healthy soils, and switching crops often can bring pest pressures down to economic levels. You don't seem to understand this.

Third, a large deterrent to the use of carbon-based fertilizers in developing countries is their cost.

For example, when oil went to about $150/barrel in apx. 2007, it spiked the cost of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer outside the reach of many small farmers in S. Asia. In short, the local market couldn't support the cost of product which used carbon-based synthetic fertilizers. Farmers then often dug out their outhouses and spread the contents on their fields, to try to meet their nitrogen crop needs.

I was there, and saw the impact of high-cost nitrogen fertilizers. I'll bet you a donut that you weren't.

Whipper, you're coming across as a smart guy who has read a lot about organics, but don't have a lot of personal experience in it, either as a consumer, producer, or as someone creating policy. Quickly, this is what's going on-

In the US, organics are a line-extension to conventionally-produced goods. This is similar to how Diet Coke, Diet Cherry Coke, etc., are a line-extension to Coke.

In Europe, organics are an attempt to have a more holistic approach to corp production, on a relatively small continent with a whole lot of people, and not a whole lot of resources.

You may disagree with it, but Europe has made a political choice to function in this manner. And, from what I've seen, these policies have led to no starvation in Europe.

In the developing world, they're doing nearly everything they can to feed their population, and often with a ton of environmental destruction. Personally, I've seen no policy constraints to pesticides, synthetic ferts, etc., in practice.

I have, however, seen claims that Borlaug's approach led to a whole lot of cash-poor farmers staying cash-poor because they couldn't afford the synthetic nitrogen fertilizers needed to get the high yields of crops created during the green revolution.

"All of this is backed up by scientific study."

The next time I'm working with destitute farmers with no cash, and you say that "scientific studies" say they need to buy more urea to increase their crop yields, they'll tell you that science or not, they have no cash. They'll then dump goat manure on their bean patch.

Regarding the free-market point put forth by Whipper, I find it weird too, although my understanding of economics is at best nascent.

I buy organic, not strictly (e.g. bananas I go for conventional, cheaper, thick skin that peels off if there is residue of the pesticides you explained, and the difference in taste is nearly undetectable) because of concern about cancer. May be the connection between pesticide and cancer is hyped-up, like cigaretter and lung cancer is hyped up. But while the jury is still out, better to be overcautious than under.

Cancer is no fun. A friend nearly died. I nursed her during her painful chemo and five entire years after, when all the while she stood a surivival rate of 26%. She didn't die, but feels better eating organic. Hers was colon cancer. She says she shits better in Post-organic life than Pre-organic, something crucial to maintain her remission. Her oncologist specifically told her that is the right thing to do. FROM WHAT HE KNOWS FROM HIS PERSONAL DIRECT EXPEREIENCE WORKING WITH OVER 10,000 cancer patients in his career thus far.

As you have laid out, Whipper reasoning getting to his conclusion about organic food is flawed in many places. Whipper is a bright person, not one of those who allows no one to disagree because he has God behind him. I think Whipper is just mad at the people who buy organic for whatever reason.

Hey, I learned a ton from reading what you had to say on organic. Thanks. Amazing knowledge. I migrated to another thread yesterday. Something that got me revved up more than organic revved up Whipper. And so I sympathize with Whipper. Over there, the issue is much more serious than apples, shit and cancer. It is about what we are going to teach in schools in the Education Reform in America. When does life begin? When does a fetus become a viable being? Who calls these shots? A commenter thinks at conception is the answer to the first question, at conception is again the answer to the second question. And his GOD and his GOD alone is the answer to the third. "Who says? Who Says? and Why?" You ask. "My God, my God, and becasue He says so". He answers. Who says your God can mind everybody else's business. My God, he says. This is what he is going to teach in the Education Reform in American, and he thinks he can reform the GOP in two years and the Dem will at that point march to Hell.

Sorry, I just have to rant. And characters like these - hypocritical, self-serving, holier than thou, who tell you St.Paul Epistle to Corinthian Chapter 13 on Love is not good enough because he didn't say love means SUFFERING like Aquinas said it means.

"So who is to suffer that suffering?" You ask. "Why, of course , it is you, not me, because I already paid for Heaven."

Manifest Destiny. Got it all figured out.

"So what about Spanish Inquistion?" You ask.

"Why, no one expected it. :) :) :)" He answers, complete with the smilies.

Like no one expected a woman who is raped will get pregnant and parent a fatherless child the rest of her life.